Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: young married and just found out my husband gave me hiv (Read 27204 times)

I'm 24 and just found out in the past two weeks that both me and my husband are hiv positive. I have no idea how long we've had it. I didn't have sex before marriage, no blood transfusion, no drug use, so I know I had to have gotten it from him (he had sex both before and even since we've been married with men). We've been married just over 2 years. While there are all kinds of issues I know we have to deal with- I'm most concerned with whether or not we will be able to have children naturally? Does anyone know about that? We had just started trying a month or so before we found out we were both positive. (We know 100% for sure that I'm not pregnant right now). Any info is useful. Most of what I've been able to find for myself has been for couples that are serodiscordant- but not really anything that specifically said what to do if both partners are positive. (It's still about week or so before we will meet with our ID and case worker and it's just something I want to go into with information about this.)

You will be able to have children. However, you will need to be on hiv meds either before you conceive, or soon after. An baby born to an hiv positive mum has less than a 2% chance of being poz when the mother is on treatment and is being closely monitored by an hiv doc. In fact, I've yet to hear of a mum who was on treatment during pregnancy having a positive child. So yes, you can do it!

As you know for sure where your hiv came from, you and your husband won't need to use condoms - provided he has not picked up some other STI from his liaisons with men. If he continues to hook up with other men, he needs to be using condoms or making sure the other person is using condoms for anal intercourse.

A good place to start learning about having children while positive is in the Family Planning section of the AIDSmeds.com's Lessons.

Another very informative resource is iBase's Guide to hiv and Pregnancy. iBase is British, but the guidelines are much the same no matter where you are.

It sounds as though you do not yet know what your numbers are and therefore, whether or not you currently need treatment. If you want to continue trying to conceive, your doctor may want to put you on meds immediately regardless of your counts. Alternatively, if your numbers do not indicate the need for immediate medication, your doctor may want you to wait until you've gotten past the first trimester.

As you are both positive with the same strain of virus, it won't matter if your husband is on meds before or during the pregnancy. It's only what's going on in your body that matters.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Hi Grace, I just wanted to say that a friend of mine became HIV positive in a marriage that subsequently fell apart, and she later got pregnant and had a lovely baby. It's been amazing for her. I hope you're both able to work it out

Welcome to the forum. I am glad you have found this forum. It did help me a lot talking with others who are going through a tough time like you. I hope you and your husband manage it carefully and wish you the best in every steps in the process of dealing with the situation.

I'm so sorry to hear about your ordeal. This is going to be a rough time for sure... I found out July 26 2011. and I'm still in shock and devastation. The people on this forum gave me a huge support and big hugs that is needed...

I hope things work out between you two as you can support each other and not go through it alone... now that you have it there is no point in looking back on how you got it but to live your life... it is extremely hard for me to be supportive right now because I have not been able to accept it yet

Hi Grace, sorry to hear about you diagnosis but welcome to the forums.

I know scared2b means well, but I do not believe what he say's is accurate regarding you having unprotected sex with your husband. From what I understand, if you and your husband share the same virus the risk of any sort of 're-inefection' is virtually zero. (There are other members here who have unprotected sex with their positive partners-in monogamous relationships). With due respect to scared2b, the OP's husband sleeping on the side with others from this point onwards is not an assumption for him to make.

I also know that women can get pregnant the 'traditional way' despite being positive- and I don't think sperm washing is necessary, especially in your case, since you are positive already. The medication etc, should prevent your baby from getting infected.

You need to be on medication especially AZT during your pregnancy and you will be delivering by C-section. And your child will have to go on meds for 6 months after for phrophylaxis. Also you will NOT be breastfeeding.

Grace

I suggest you take care to ignore any 'medical' advice you get here like that above, which is so inaccurate as to be positively dangerous. You need to research quite widely especially about the dangers to you (and your baby if you do decide to have one) of AZT - as Ann has said, the chances of you bearing a HIV+ child are truly minimal.Emotional support from places like this is one thing, quack advice is quite another.

Good luckScarded2b:

Given the extremely short period since diagnosis, and the traumatic nature of most of your posts, I think you should step back and recognise that you are in no position - emotionally or psychologically or in terms of knowledge - to give the kind of medical and emotional advice that you have here.Dealing with your own emotional trauma, for which I am sure we all empathise - is not best dealt with by resolving it through giving misguided advice here.

2. And your child will have to go on meds for 6 months after for phrophylaxis.

3. You should NOT have unprotected sex with him because of possible resistant strains that can be going back and forth between you two and the people he might be sleeping with on the side.

4. Also he should not get you pregnant the traditional way anyhow because his sperm will have HIV and will pass onto your child 100%.

I've quoted the incorrect portions of scared2be's post and numbered them for easy reference.

1. You will not have to have a C-section provided your viral load is lower than 1,000 at birth. Some places will want you to be undetectable by at least a few weeks before birth. Most positive women today are able to give birth naturally, unless a C-section is required for reasons other than hiv.

2. Your child will not have to be on meds for six months - but she or he will have to be on liquid Retrovir (AZT) for six WEEKS after birth.

3. As I've already mentioned, as you know you have the same strain of virus as your husband, you do not need to use condoms. Reinfection is extremely rare anyway. My positive partner and I never use condoms and it's never been a problem. (my partner is also the person from whom I acquired my hiv)

4. The man's sperm is absolutely NOT how a baby may be infected. If a baby is born hiv positive, the baby got it from the mother and the mother only. That is why I told you it does not matter what's going on with your husband's viral load - the ONLY hiv and the ONLY viral load that matters is YOURS.

You need to research quite widely especially about the dangers to you (and your baby if you do decide to have one) of AZT

Don't let Matt's scaremongering frighten you. The use of AZT in pregnancy has been widely studied and has been deemed safe. While you might not want to stay on AZT after your pregnancy, it's one of the top choices for treatment during pregnancy. From the Family Planning Lesson I linked you to in my first post...

Retrovir is a preferred NRTI for use in combination with other HIV drugs during pregnancy. This recommendation is based on the results of several clinical trials confirming that the drug is safe and effective. Retrovir should typically be included in a regimen for pregnant women unless significant side effects occur. It should not, however, be used at the same time as Zerit (stavudine; d4T). (d4T is no longer used outside underdeveloped countries.)

No evidence of harm to the fetus or evidence of birth defects. Studies have determined Retrovir to be safe for women and their infants.

AZT has a bad reputation - mainly because when it was first used to treat hiv it was given in doses that were far too high, thereby being toxic. (hell, if you take too much aspirin, that's toxic too) The dosage used today is far lower.

Scared2be, I realise you had good intentions, but please refrain from commenting on things you have not researched. A simple perusal of the links I provided above would have let you know that you didn't know what you were talking about.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Suggesting someone do their *own* research about one of the most toxic drugs on the planet (and one that cannot - scientifically - act on HIV replication anyway, but will change the very nature of mitochondrial DNA dangerously) is an opinion and not scaremongering.Studies have shown that for properly nourished HIV positive expectant mothers receiving regular prenatal care, way over 90% of their children test negative with no drug therapy. Mainstream medical experts acknowledge that children need up to 18 months to develop their own immune response and discard the antibodies passed on to them from their mothers, and note that HIV testing before 18 months of age does not yield conclusive results. So there is significant scientific and clinical evidence that prophylactic AZT treatment in new borns is not only unnecessary (and not a question of the baby 'will have to be' on it) but is highly dangerous.

It is wise to look at AZT more closely.

AZT works by blocking the formation of DNA -- a process essential to sustaining life -- and destroying all growing cells, particularly new cells produced in the bone marrow where the immune system is generated. AZT is a known carcinogen, mutagen, and teratogen, and for many years it was contraindicated for use during pregnancy.

AZT was approved for expectant mothers based on the conclusions of a single trial, ACTG076, a trial sponsored by AZT's manufacturer. According to this study, transmission rates of HIV were 25.5% for infants of untreated mothers and 8.3% for children born to the AZT-treated women.

The results of ACTG076 have proved impossible to duplicate in further studies on pregnant women treated with AZT. In fact, other reports have shown that expectant mothers using prenatal multivitamins experienced lower rates of transmission than the lowest rate of those treated with AZT. One study determined that use of vitamin A correlates with a transmission rate of 7.2%.

Yes, babies will carry their mother's hiv antibodies for up to eighteen months after birth. However, that is why most hospitals now use PCR (VL) testing within a few days after the birth. If the test is negative, it is preformed again a few months later.

"Way over" 90% isn't good enough. Plenty of women have taken AZT during pregnancy with no ill effects. Babies born to pregnant women on treatment have less than a 2% chance of being born with hiv - much better than your "way over 90%".

Matt, what is your problem with hiv meds anyway? The more you post, the more I begin to think you have a denialist agenda. Knock it off before you find yourself banned. And do not enter into a discussion in this thread about what I just said in this paragraph. If you have a problem with what I've said, take it to PM or risk getting a time out for derailing a thread. (and you can consider yourself warned.)

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

YMatt, what is your problem with hiv meds anyway? The more you post, the more I begin to think you have a denialist agenda. Knock it off before you find yourself banned.

Please change the record and the misrepresentation. My views on HAART, HIV and AIDS mirror almost exactly the views of people such as Sean Strub and Dr Joseph Sonnabend.Are they 'denialists' that smart & strong will support you in 'banning' and 'censoring' because you will be 'banning' their views if you ban me - should I email both of them for their comments?

You may find this document helpful as you learn more about how to prevent mother-to-child transmission. On a softer note, my colleague helps women deliver wonderfully HIV-free babies -- and we've got plenty of women here in the forum who've delivered healthy babies.

Please change the record and the misrepresentation. My views on HAART, HIV and AIDS mirror almost exactly the views of people such as Sean Strub and Dr Joseph Sonnabend.Are they 'denialists' that smart & strong will support you in 'banning' and 'censoring' because you will be 'banning' their views if you ban me - should I email both of them for their comments?

I told you we were not going to have this discussion in this thread. You just earned yourself a time out, which you could have avoided by simply PMing me instead. As you have already had a time out, this one will last for 30 days.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Yes we have - and every one of them was on hiv meds during their pregnancy. I'm pretty sure that nearly every one of them was on a combo that included AZT, and every single baby was born absolutely fine and healthy. No misshapen heads!

Grace, don't let Matt scare you. Talk with your doctor about what combo will best suit you and if it includes AZT, don't let it give you nightmares. Too many women have delivered healthy, happy children after being treated with AZT during pregnancy.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Ann. I agree with you. AZT is very safe in pregnancy and for the baby prophylaxis. It is widely used in every hospital I've worked at. They do recommend C-section however it is her choice of course. best of luck.

I want to thank everyone for the information shared. It's given me a lot of hope that we might be able to have the family we've been wanting for so long. I appreciate the concern voiced and the support. It's hard not being able to talk freely about this with my current friends. I don't want my husband judged for his mistakes. Having HIV and giving it to his wife is enough to have to deal with for a lifetime without anyone else ever adding to that. I'm thankful for this forum where I can come and be honest about what's going on and find people who've been there. We're hoping to hear some results from labs this coming week and I will update when we find out more.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Well, results number one is in. My husband and I both went in Tuesday and saw the specialist for the first time and got lab results.

For me, CD4 over 800, VL between 7000-8000 which I know is pretty good- not even in need of medsFor him, CD4 just under 500, VL over 31000. His wasn't as good, but still nothing horrible.

We discussed having children with our specialist and she is really supportive. She wants us both undetectable before we start to try so we had to both go on meds immediately. She did say that we are in a great position to have as many kids as we want.

In other news, because we want to have kids I had to be put on medicine that would be safe for pregnancy and it's not so easy to take. My husband gets to take just one pill a day while I'm popping 3 at a time twice a day. He has no side effects, while mine seems to empty me out, heat me up, and knock me out. (Which is why I'm home during the middle of the day- had to take off of work). But, it's only day 3 of taking them and I hear it gets better.

In the meantime, at least it's going to help in my weight loss efforts. (Before I even found out about HIV we were ready to try for kids and I wanted to lose weight to be healthier going into pregnancy).

Given the multiple toxicities of this chemotherapy, especially on such a vulnerable and immature being as a newborn, its administration to patients which are visibly healthy requires a degree of certainty in the diagnostic that's not achievable through indirect methods.

Therefore we estimate that being [Patient's Name] a pregnant woman in perfect health as well as her unborn child,﻿ the chemotherapy's known risks outweigh the theoretical benefits. Our advice regarding [Patient's Name] is not to recommend the current protocol for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV."

So if you and your partner do decide to to try for a baby, and you do conceive, then the choice of what to do when the baby is born is yours, and yours alone, since the baby has no choice in the matter.Think carefully - I did, and it was not to risk the health of my baby by feeding it ARVs.

I'm suggesting she get all the information before risking subjecting a new-born to toxic chemotherapy.There are many eminent clinicians who simply do not agree that ARV therapy in pregnancy, and especially in a new born, is advisable.But I have learned the hard way that there are those who will always only push one side, and not want others to see a fuller picture.

I'm suggesting she get all the information before risking subjecting a new-born to toxic chemotherapy.There are many eminent clinicians who simply do not agree that ARV therapy in pregnancy, and especially in a new born, is advisable.But I have learned the hard way that there are those who will always only push one side, and not want others to see a fuller picture.

So basically your reply consists of anecdotal information which is useless on the internet.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Really? Links to US National Institutes of Health studies, for example, that show rapid disease progression in infants born to Mothers treated with ARVs before and during pregnancy was significantly *higher* than in infants born to Mothers who were *not* treated with ARVs?Shall I write to the NIH and tell them they are 'quacks'Why should anyone take notice of an unqualified, unpregnant and untreated person like you, over the US National Institutes of Health?

Your knowledge-free hostility and mockery is enough to make me judge your opinion to be dubious at the very least.

Really? Links to US National Institutes of Health studies, for example, that show rapid disease progression in infants born to Mothers treated with ARVs before and during pregnancy was significantly *higher* than in infants born to Mothers who were *not* treated with ARVs?

I, for one, would be curious to see the data you speak of. Please provide the links here.

I, for one, would be curious to see the data you speak of. Please provide the links here.

The links are in my original post - links used by the Consultant in his report that I quoted verbatim.Maybe you and your colleague Ann should have taken the trouble and effort to read them in the beginning. The fact neither of you did is indicative of very closed minds.

Okay, so in addition to the de Souza study you link to above, there are two others, published in 1999 and 2000, pretty much suggesting the same thing – that infants exposed to Retrovir in utero who ended up becoming infected with the virus progressed more rapidly than those who weren’t exposed to Retrovir and became infected.

One thing worth pointing out here is that these three studies are retrospective in their design and involved hand-picked medical files. Important information and of value in developing hypotheses, but you’d be hard pressed to find any expert who will accept retrospective analyses as conclusive. In fact, at least two prospective studies—well-designed clinical trials, which are arguably much more solid in their conclusions, given that they can adjust for confounding and bias, which retrospective studies cannot do—published around the same time failed to find any association between Retrovir exposure during pregnancy and rapid disease progression. One of these reports involved follow-up data from the NIH-conducted PACTG 076 study and the other was from the Bangkok Collaborative Perinatal HIV Transmission Study Group.

And here’s what I mean by confounding factors and bias. Outside of a clinical trial, prior to 1994 (and the completion of the 076 study), asymptomatic women were probably less likely to be identified and to receive perinatal antiretroviral drugs. Therefore, children exposed to perinatal Retrovir were more likely to be born to mothers with more advanced disease, which may have played a role in the more rapid disease progression in the infants born with HIV, despite Retrovir prophylaxis.

I also think it’s important to be a bit more contemporary in our thought process here. All of the studies referenced above involve mother-to-child transmission prophylaxis, using Retrovir, in the early 1990s. This is before there were efforts to recommend testing for all pregnant women and several years before there were strong treatment options available for infants born with HIV—whether they had been exposed to Retrovir or not in utero.

Consider a prospective cohort study published in 2007, involving 85 children born with HIV between 1994 and 2001. In this study, HIV-infected infants exposed to Retrovir in utero started subsequent antiretroviral therapy significantly earlier than those not exposed to Retrovir in utero and and demonstrated decreased HIV progression by three years of age. Overall, 21% of children exposed to Retrovir progressed to AIDS by three years of age, compared with 45 percent of those not exposed to Retrovir in utero. Moreover, the study found no evidence of decreased efficacy of subsequent antiretroviral therapy among the children who were exposed to Retrovir.

Also consider the fact that modern-day antiretiretroval therapy has essentially drop-kicked mother-to-child transmission rates to less than 2 percent. Thus, you’d be hard pressed to find any modern evaluation suggesting that the risk of perinatal antiretroviral therapy is greater than its benefits. And now that we have antiretrovirals that can halt disease progression—particularly rapid disease progression—in newborns and infants, the de Souza study you reference above is, in effect, not applicable.

If I were you I would listen to Tim and Ann, I would trust them with my lfie..and trust me I value my life.

Taking HIV meds reduces the likelihood of your baby becoming HIV+, and you do have a couple of options, some women take meds throughtout their pregnancies and others opt out to delay meds until the secon trimester.

For women who are already on meds, and as long as their meds are safe for the pregnancy, are normally recommended they continue with their meds.

If you have not been yet started meds then your Doc will assess the situation and recommend a safe combination for the final trimester. it is sometimes recommended that you take a combo plus AZT as an intravenous infusion during delivery and that the baby is treated with AZT for 4/6 weeks after birth.

You do not have to take meds against your will, just be aware if you decide not to it does increase the likelihood of your baby acquiring HIV, even if your Vl is undetectable.

It's been a while since I had time to read up on HIV and pregnacy, I'm way passed the baby stage.. ..so if anything has changed in precedures I'm sure Ann or Tim will correct me and educate you more on this subject.

To say that above you would have to be blind and not have read this thread.I am certainly not accusing you or Ann or Tim of being 'drug pushers' but by giving a very one sided account of both the detailed medical evidence, as well as ignoring the opinions and studies of 100s of Consultant Gynaecologists, you certainly come across like that.

Consider a prospective cohort study] published in 2007, involving 85 children born with HIV between 1994 and 2001.

It was 73 children, and not 85, and is as old a study as you criticise in those that show serious ethical dangers in both pre and perinatal use of AZT. Such a simple error when reviewing data is almost unheard of among those who are experienced in seeking truthful and ethical conclusions from data.Apart from that, the study says nothing like the conclusion you come to but one that says use of AZT and ART follow up results in *no better* (ie the same) rates of illness than no treatment.Secondly, as you know very well, cohort data is demonstrably and historically so flawed as not to be used, let alone relied upon, in making fatal clinical decisions. If you don't know about the dangers of cohort data in the famous case of HRT for women, then maybe you should educate yourself a little better.Grace will have a heavy burden in judging all clinical data in coming to a decision about herself, let alone the life of a vulnerable new born without anyone else to protect them.On the basis of your poor reading of your own chosen data, let alone your ignorance around the dangers of cohort data, and your dismissal of the detailed findings of many eminent consultant gynaecologists would lead any reasonable person not to rely on your opinion at all.

It was 73 children, and not 85, and is as old a study as you criticise in those that show serious ethical dangers in both pre and perinatal use of AZT. Such a simple error when reviewing data is almost unheard of among those who are experienced in seeking truthful and ethical conclusions from data.

Wrong -- perhaps if you actually took the time to read the entire study, and not just the abstract, you'd see that the study involved 85 children born with HIV, 73 of which had been followed for a total of three years.

Apart from that, the study says nothing like the conclusion you come to but one that says use of AZT and ART follow up results in *no better* (ie the same) rates of illness than no treatment.

I repeat the conclusion, verbatim, from the study paper:

In this study, HIV-infected infants who received PZP started subsequent ART significantly earlier than those who did not receive PZP and demonstrated decreased HIV progression by the age of 3 years. Overall, 21% of children who received PZP progressed to category C by 3 years of age compared with 45% of those who did not receive PZP (P = 0.047; see Table 3). Moreover, we found no evidence of decreased efficacy of subsequent ART among the children who were exposed to PZP (PZP and ART together: 16% with a category C diagnosis, ART alone: 30% with a category C diagnosis; P = 0.32). These results are reassuring, given concerns that PZP may be associated with worse outcomes among HIV-infected children.16

Secondly, as you know very well, cohort data is demonstrably and historically so flawed as not to be used, let alone relied upon, in making fatal clinical decisions. If you don't know about the dangers of cohort data in the famous case of HRT for women, then maybe you should educate yourself a little better.

And yet for all your talk about "detailed findings of many eminent consultant gynecologists" you choose to come at these boards with a link to exactly one retrospective evaluation of case files -- the weakest of all evidence -- in support of your claims, all the while conveniently disregarding the much more conclusive data from randomized clinical trials linked above.

On the basis of your poor reading of your own chosen data, let alone your ignorance around the dangers of cohort data, and your dismissal of the detailed findings of many eminent consultant gynaecologists would lead any reasonable person not to rely on your opinion at all.

Turn the tables all you want, but anyone with two eyes in their head reading these forums will immediately recognize that TWO people have failed miserably in this thread: You for failing miserably to put the data where your mouth is, and Grace, for having to slog through such anti-health claptrap.

...Even in the presence of a real infection of the mother, 8 out of 10 babies would obtain no benefit in exchange for the permanent damages they'd be inflicted (SEE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10935691 )....

basically refers to the fact that 2 out of 10 babies in the "no AZT" arm of the study wound up infected with HIV. Actually, that is an understatement, the study found 22.3% of the babies wound up HIV infected.

Under current treatment guidelines the risk of bearing a child with HIV drops to less than 2%. That's more than a 10-fold decrease in risk.

"One of the major achievements in HIV research was the demonstration by the Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group 076 (PACTG 076) clinical trial that administration of zidovudine to the pregnant woman and her infant could reduce the risk of perinatal transmission by nearly 70% [1]. Following the results of PACTG 076, in the United States and in other resource-abundant countries, implementation of the zidovudine regimen coupled with increased antenatal HIV counseling and testing rapidly resulted in significant declines in transmission [2-5]. Subsequent clinical trials and observational studies demonstrated that combination antiretroviral (ARV) prophylaxis (initially dual- and then triple- combination therapy) given to the mother antenatally was associated with further declines in transmission to less than 2%2, 6-7. It is currently estimated that fewer than 200 HIV-infected infants are now born each year in the United States4, 8." http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/Guidelines/GuidelineHTML.aspx?GuidelineID=9&docID=3&NodeID=146

Given your criticism of cohort studies you might also note that this study you cited was also a retrospective cohort study.

GraceThe risk of your child being born with HIV drops dramatically if you use antiretrovirals under the care of your doctor.

Additionally, the reference has nothing to do with the claim that precedes it. The study cited focuses on rapid disease progression among those who do become infected perinatally, whereas the comment hints that we'll be reading about "permanent damages" among those exposed to Retrovir in utero but are born HIV negative. Here too, the volume of evidence indicating that children exposed to ARVs in utero survive and thrive with untoward effects greatly outweighs limited data to the contrary.

so does this mean that Matt39 (aka annieinbc) is banned rather than just on a 30-day time out?

Yes, for both the multiple account issue - particularly as the new account was a way to get around a Time Out - as well the distinctly denialist leaning flavour of his posts.

I mean, come on. Advising a pregnant woman away from the ARVs that will save her child from becoming hiv positive and misrepresenting study results are denialist hallmarks. Denialists are murders and are not welcome here.

I'm only sorry we didn't catch him sooner. My apologies for dropping the ball on this one.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

The denialist myth that antiretrovirals taken by pregnant women are harmful to the foetus which has been mindlessly trotted out in this thread by Matt39/AnnieInBC is fully debunked on the Aidstruth.org website. The article can be read here.

I suggest that anyone who has been worried by the rubbish Matt39/AnnieInBC spouted read the article and the links that article provides.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Grace, after all the sturm und drang that Matt/AnnieinBC injected (no pun intended) into this thread, we can direct the attention properly back to you and your hopes of having a healthy baby.

The success in making that possible for HIV+ parents is one of the brightest successes in the epidemic.

We're totally supportive of that effort on your part so I hope we will continue to hear from you as things move along. You seem to have found an informed and supportive doctor, which is a very good tool to have in achieving your goal.

I always have suspected that. See, I do pay a little attention! When all of a sudden in “ Am I in great danger thread” this new woman showed as Annie X right after Matt39 got his timeout! What a coincidence!

Grace, I don’t know much about pregnancy and meds but I do know this - taking meds is lot less risky than NOT taking it. Just very basic simple fact. At the end of the day its you who have to make the decision and be ready for it. I wish you the best to that regard. Good luck to you and your husband and congrates to immune/med stats!